This is from the DPS website, the section on Private Security Bureau (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Specifically, it is from a link entitled "PSB Opinion Summaries."Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'll try to find the statutory authority, but the short version is anyone serving as a security guard must be licensed as a security guard. There is an exception for unarmed voluntary security personnel for churches and possibly other charitable organizations.Rex B wrote:Charles, can you expand on the reasons for this?Charles L. Cotton wrote: One word of caution however; don't have your voluntary security people armed. I am not on the security team at my church for that very reason, but they know who I am (and many others).
If I can find the statute, I'll post it.
Chas.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/docs/psb_opin_sum.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some thoughts:Church Volunteer Security Patrol May 10, 2007
A volunteer security patrol made up of church members would generally require licensing under
the provisions of Section 1702.108 or 1702.222, regardless of whether any compensation is
received as a result of the activities. The only exception to licensing provided by the legislature
for nonprofit and civic organizations is found in Section 1702.327, which applies specifically to
nonprofit and civic organizations that employ peace officers under certain circumstances and
would not be applicable here.
However, there is one exception to licensing under Chapter 1702 provided by the legislature that
could arguably apply, which can be found in section 1702.323 (“Security Department of Private
Business”). This exception would allow volunteers to provide security services exclusively for
one church, as long as they do not carry firearms and as long as they do not wear “a uniform with
any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement or a patch or
apparel with ‘security’ on the patch or apparel.” See TEX. OCC. CODE §1702.323(a) & (d)(2).
Thus, the wearing of a uniform or any apparel containing the word “security” would subject
them to the licensing requirements of the act.
Yes the Deputy advising your church to ban CHLs is being foolish. (Whoever commented above that if he really believes what he says he better wear his uniform every Sunday or leave his gun at home was dead-on). And unarmed "safety teams" that can't figure out how to incorporate CHLs are not much use for an armed assailant. Unless there are armed people, off-duty/on-duty LEOs or what-have-you, right at the point of confrontation as it happens, CHLs are all you got.
Even at the New Life Church in Colorado, several people were killed and wounded while that CHL holder, the gal, had to run from one side of the church to the other -- she wasn't at the point of confrontation when the shooting started. Also remember, that church had intel that something might happen, and had armed police officers, right there at the church -- and as soon as they went home after the service ended, the bad guy started shooting. Cops missed the whole thing.
I recently attended an interactive training session (laser-equipped guns with computer-driven video scenarios) on shoot/no-shoot judgement. This was put on by a police department (not one from my city/county) that was put on specifically for CHL holders, because this police department encourages CHLs to be trained -- not to intervene in place of police, but to be ready for a confrontation if it happens, because they know the cops normally won't get there in time. The officers at the training, including their deputy police chief, said they feel better knowing there are CHLs in the community and that at least there is the potential for a lone cop to be helped out if he gets in trouble. They are feeling their way forward with this initiative, but plan to do it again, and make it at least an annual event. The training they were giving us was the same they were giving their patrol officers, except we got more scenarios to run through. They clearly did NOT have the "only one" mentality... (p.s. here is a real thread-hijacker...they did NOT disparage the idea of CHL badges...)
The point being that LEOs and "safety teams" need to figure out how to deal with a situation that includes identifying "good guy" CHLs. This would seem to be easier in a church where people know each other, as opposed to a mall or McWhatsit. If your deputy prevails, I would find a new church.
best wishes,